Human Nature

[Dr Strangelove]

A while ago I came to the conclusion that the main reason religions that have a god and explain the universe exist is due to that fact that by nature, humans can not stand ignorance. The finite human mind can question how or what such things as infinite time, or the origin of all that is are, but it cannot comprehend the true answer. Thus, as I like to put it, when you try to think of an answer your brain "hurts" (for lack of a better term.) Now, humans don't like for their brain to "hurt", so they search and search and search for an answer. This is where religion comes into play.

In my mind religion serves two purposes: to explain the origin of all that is and to provide morals, motivation to live, etc. to humans. So in short, religion provides the much needed answer to the brain, whilst the teachings of that religion are driven (not forcefully, more like the person can't stop thinking about it) into the person's brain and thoughts until the point where the person concludes that this must be the correct answer, for it is the only answer that they have yet to see. (Please note that I am speaking of a person's first contact with a religion. This also explains why most people prefer the religion they were introduced to as a small child.)

But, you say, how do atheists' prevent from going crazy without a religion? It is my personal opinion that atheists have done/are one of three things: first, they accept that they do not know the answer; second, they are convinced that there is no god, and that everything is by chance or something similar; and third, they have completely turned their back on the issue (I would think this is not likely, but possible nonetheless.)

In conclusion, (this is the part you argue with me about) I believe that all religions are myths (unless of course, they happen to be the correct answer by chance), and just convenient ideals created to calm the brains's relentless search for the truth.

(Please note I am not arguing that atheism or similar ideals are correct either.)

(On a side note, one of the major flaws I see, and have experienced, with atheism is the lack of a purpose in life, which can make one easily depressed. Ah, the complexities and woes of the human mind.)

[ST88]

In conclusion, (this is the part you argue with me about) I believe that all religions are myths (unless of course, they happen to be the correct answer by chance), and just convenient ideals created to calm the brains's relentless search for the truth.

This is the part where I argue with you:
I'm with you about the part of all religions being myths. But as to their creation, I don't think it's quite that simple. The reasons for the earliest types of religions are not entirely clear, but probably had something to do with trying to find out how the world worked. In this way, I argue the opposite: that Religion began as a type of Science to try and satisfy the brain's need for an explanation of an event. Earthquake? Earthquake God. Lightning? Lightning God. Gravity? Gravity God. I don't think these were convenient ideas (or ideals), I think they were the best explanations that early humans could come up with given the tools that they had.

It wasn't until we humans began figuring out what might be actually going on during these events that science began evaluating natural forces that did not require a religious explanation. In some fields, this happened in the shockingly recent past.

In my opinion, the Behavioral God came much later, when it became necessary to record all the things that this God wanted of his creations, because the population had gotten too large and unwieldy to trust in a strictly oral tradition. But through the process of natural selection, those human genetic lines who had previously believed in the Natural God were now predisposed to believe in a God that answered even better and more complex questions.

[Dr Strangelove]

Actually ST88, I agree with you. I stated it a bit brief, but what I meant by "convenient ideals created to calm the brain" was that somehow, the idea of various gods was created, and that the gods always answered the peoples questions (i.e. convenient.) It is strange to think of how ancient society's religions originated. Maybe it could have been as simple as the leader stating his thoughts on why the sun rose every day and the people followed him. (Thus, all religions were created by man at some point in time.)

[Curious]

It is well known that the human brain does not like gaps in it's knowledge. People with, for example loss of memory due to alcohol abuse or disease, conflabulate. That is, they create a plausible explanation and neatly insert it "between" their other memories so convincingly they cannot tell what is real and what is imagined. In the same way, people who are hypnotised and "regress to past lives", can come up with fantastic stories, full of detail, and convince themselves that what they "remember" is actually true.
The theories of evolution and the big bang, I believe, do to some extent fill the gap that necessitated religious belief and more often than not (especially on this forum in my limited experience) people hold to either one point of view or the other. This does not however make it all a crock of S**t. Perhaps the intuitive faculties of the human mind could at some level grasp certain principles or glimpse pieces of the truth. I doubt if any organised religion could survive if all that religion had to offer was some strange notion of "a musty smell" or perhaps "something like a light in my head" and so the mystical experience becomes interpreted as language that the people might understand. There are of course examples of outright deception.
The point of view of the atheist is, in my opinion, fully logical until evidence is found to make this view invalid. Unfortunately due to the fact that such evidence(in my experience) is almost always subjective, the atheist tends to disqualify himself from seeing this evidence due to the belief that "such a course of study is futile". This seems to be similar to the view of the zealot who refuses to examine the scientific evidence that refutes his belief because "such words are obviously lies sent by demons to deceive me".

[bernee51]

A while ago I came to the conclusion that the main reason religions that have a god and explain the universe exist is due to that fact that by nature, humans can not stand ignorance. The finite human mind can question how or what such things as infinite time, or the origin of all that is are, but it cannot comprehend the true answer.

An interesting hypothesis...one explored by Huxley in Perennial Philosophy. He investigates, at length, the sense of the 'divine' that has permeated human history. From the earliest time man has had a sense of "Tat twam asi" as stated by Vedantic philosophers. "Thou art that", i.e. man is the divine - and something has got in the way to seperate us from this knowledge. This is where religions come into the picture.

My 'take' on this sense of the divine is that we have an intrinsic knowledge of the 'truth' - we exist, nothing more nothing less. We come from Nothing, thence we return. With our sense of an individual self (the ego) this is a little to much to bear - we would love to live indefinately - like we imagine the gods do (remember - we were made in their image). Thus we invent the myths.

In my mind religion serves two purposes: to explain the origin of all that is and to provide morals, motivation to live, etc. to humans.

The function of religion to which most relate is the translative (to which you allude). Religious belief provides meaning and legitimacy to mankind in the face of the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune'. In that, it does a good job - many do get solace from their beliefs.

But, you say, how do atheists' prevent from going crazy without a religion?

By developing an understanding of the nature of religion and its purposes and gaining the same from other sources.

It is my personal opinion that atheists have done/are one of three things: first, they accept that they do not know the answer; second, they are convinced that there is no god, and that everything is by chance or something similar; and third, they have completely turned their back on the issue (I would think this is not likely, but possible nonetheless.)

Now you are generalizing. The only thing atheists have to have in common in order to be atheists is the lack of belief in god(s). An atheist may not necessarily accept that 'they do not know the answer", 'chance' may play a part in our existence, but it is not he only option. And from this forum, you wil note that many atheists have notin any way "turned their back on the issue"

I believe that all religions are myths (unless of course, they happen to be the correct answer by chance), and just convenient ideals created to calm the brains's relentless search for the truth.

If all are myths (a point withwhich I agree), how could one be right 'by chance"

...with atheism is the lack of a purpose in life, which can make one easily depressed. Ah, the complexities and woes of the human mind.)

Why should atheism mean a lack of purpose in life. You are assuming here that the only thing that would give purpose to life is the existence of a god and some sort of afterlife.

Life is it's own purpose. The purpose of life is a life of purpose.

Find your own...do not accept someone else's second hand purpose.

[bernee51]

Perhaps the intuitive faculties of the human mind could at some level grasp certain principles or glimpse pieces of the truth. I doubt if any organised religion could survive if all that religion had to offer was some strange notion of "a musty smell" or perhaps "something like a light in my head" and so the mystical experience becomes interpreted as language that the people might understand. There are of course examples of outright deception.

Control of religion has been and always been about power. As mentioned in my previous post, religion can fulfil a useful function in society - those in the know have manipulated this to maintain power in society. This has been tha case from the earliest anamistic and magical beliefs - magic and ritual used to appease the gods - with only the select few having access to this 'special' knowledge. This continues to this day.

The point of view of the atheist is, in my opinion, fully logical until evidence is found to make this view invalid. Unfortunately due to the fact that such evidence(in my experience) is almost always subjective,

The idea of a 'personal god' - the JCI god - is always going to be subjective. Having a 'personal relationship' with god or Jesus or who ever can only be subjective. It is evidence to the believer and no one else. I have no doubt that those who believe do so...that does not make their god exists other than in their belief.

the atheist tends to disqualify himself from seeing this evidence due to the belief that "such a course of study is futile".

The course of study is not necessarily futile - else they would not have embarked on it - this forum is evidence of that. The belief in a deity, however, may be seen as an exercise in futility.

[QED]

One of the most notable traits of human nature is that of hierarchy. Just check out any kindergarten and you'll see what I mean. Humans automatically sort themselves into leaders and followers. This is a broad dynamic that always emerges in any size of population containing more than one member.

I see two things emerging from this that augment the explanation of why we have religion:
1) The notion of god appears inevitably in the minds of the population as the ultimate boss.
2) Those people that most convincingly offer access to god gain vicarious authority by doing so.

The second point is in evidence to a greater or lesser degree depending on where abouts in the world you are, although historically speaking it was less dependant in the past.

I think that things like knowledge, moral code and purpose are subordinate to the notion of authority because we instinctively look to authority for those things.

[Curious]

The point of view of the atheist is, in my opinion, fully logical until evidence is found to make this view invalid. Unfortunately due to the fact that such evidence(in my experience) is almost always subjective,

The idea of a 'personal god' - the JCI god - is always going to be subjective. Having a 'personal relationship' with god or Jesus or who ever can only be subjective. It is evidence to the believer and no one else. I have no doubt that those who believe do so...that does not make their god exists other than in their belief.

But atheism is the disbelief in any God not just that of a particular religion. How, if you believe there is no God, can you then automatically accept the qualities attributed to God by a particular religion? There are many religions that believe in an impersonal God.

the atheist tends to disqualify himself from seeing this evidence due to the belief that "such a course of study is futile".

The course of study is not necessarily futile - else they would not have embarked on it - this forum is evidence of that. The belief in a deity, however, may be seen as an exercise in futility.

This is my point precisely. This forum is incapable of showing subjective evidence.

[Curious]

The idea of a 'personal god' - the JCI god - is always going to be subjective. Having a 'personal relationship' with god or Jesus or who ever can only be subjective. It is evidence to the believer and no one else. I have no doubt that those who believe do so...that does not make their god exists other than in their belief.

But isn't atheism the disbelief in any God not just that of a particular religion. How, if you believe there is no God, can you then automatically accept the qualities attributed to God by a particular religion? There are many religions that believe in an impersonal God.

The course of study is not necessarily futile - else they would not have embarked on it - this forum is evidence of that. The belief in a deity, however, may be seen as an exercise in futility.

Any forum is incapable of showing subjective evidence. The point I was trying to put across is that strong atheists tend to be highly logical and therefore tend to demand objective evidence before a course of study would be even considered. The obvious inconsistencies found within any religion can lead to a rather fast conclusion either for or against. Personally, I do not consider reading religious text sufficient to be classed as real study and find it inconceivable that a God would discriminate on the basis of the level of a person's gullibility.

[Dilettante]

bernee51 wrote:

If all are myths (a point withwhich I agree), how could one be right 'by chance"

Let's not forget that the word "myth" has more than one meaning. Apart from "a false notion", a myth is also a story used to explain something (such as a worldview or perhaps the origins of the world, etc). In that sense, some myths are illuminating (Plato's "myth of the cave") while others are obscurantist (the Noah myth).
Around these parts, one of the best theories on the origins of religion is that the first humans projected on the heavens the qualities not of humans as themselves but of those numinous animals which they believed had the power to harm them or protect them (e.g. totemic animals). If you look at the cave paintings you'll see why. When primitive peoples performed their rituals they frequently used masks representing animals, so there could be something to this theory.